1 DBSG-Stakeholder Meeting Dublin 7-8 November 2011 Paper 2 Dogger Bank Fisheries Regime Hans Lassen - ICES Secretariat Introduction The International Dogger Bank Steering Group (DBSG) has invited the stakeholders around the Dogger Bank with a view to developing a protective regime for the Natura 2000 sites on the Dogger Bank. The North Sea RAC working group on spatial planning (Chair: Euan Dunn) has taken up the challenge to contribute to the discussion on the fishery regime for the Dogger Bank and provided a paper that was adopted by the NSRAC ExCom 11 October 2011. The ICES secretariat assembled information relating to fishing intensity, ecological values etc. of the Dogger Bank. DBSG has asked the ACOM leadership for guidance with regard to the zoning regime of the Dogger Bank. To date these different processes have all had their results: - the DBSG has been working on scenarios for a zoning proposal - the North Sea RAC delivered a document containing the vision of the industry and the NGO’s on the protective regime for the Dogger Bank - the ACOM leadership provided, through the secretariat, some guidance, in the form of a brief note, to the members of the DBSG. DBSG met 24-25 October and reviewed progress regarding the development of scenarios for discussion in Dublin and reviewed the guiding principles for what is allowed within a zone and the location of these zones. DBSG charged the ICES Secretariat guided by the DBSG chair to prepare this paper and asked that the paper includes several scenarios to illustrate different aspects of the concerns that are relevant in formulating the final outcome of the DBSG deliberations. The scenarios are evaluated based on information gathered by the ICES secretariat, It is certain that other maps can be developed. For that reason this paper not only contains the map in the chapter on ‘Scenarios’ of this paper, but it also contains the set of criteria – called the guiding principles of location - used to identify the locations. Furthermore, the document contains some considerations with regard to enforcement and control, research, control and surveillance, and monitoring. In its paper the North Sea RAC indicated its willingness to be part of a co-management system for the Dogger Bank. For that reason this paper also contains a brief discussion of a possible co-management regime.
Transcript
1
DBSG-Stakeholder Meeting Dublin 7-8 November 2011
Paper 2
Dogger Bank Fisheries Regime Hans Lassen - ICES Secretariat
Introduction The International Dogger Bank Steering Group (DBSG) has invited the stakeholders around the Dogger Bank with a view to developing a protective regime for the Natura 2000 sites on the Dogger Bank. The North Sea RAC working group on spatial planning (Chair: Euan Dunn) has taken up the challenge to contribute to the discussion on the fishery regime for the Dogger Bank and provided a paper that was adopted by the NSRAC ExCom 11 October 2011. The ICES secretariat assembled information relating to fishing intensity, ecological values etc. of the Dogger Bank. DBSG has asked the ACOM leadership for guidance with regard to the zoning regime of the Dogger Bank. To date these different processes have all had their results:
- the DBSG has been working on scenarios for a zoning proposal - the North Sea RAC delivered a document containing the vision of the industry
and the NGO’s on the protective regime for the Dogger Bank - the ACOM leadership provided, through the secretariat, some guidance, in the
form of a brief note, to the members of the DBSG. DBSG met 24-25 October and reviewed progress regarding the development of scenarios for discussion in Dublin and reviewed the guiding principles for what is allowed within a zone and the location of these zones. DBSG charged the ICES Secretariat guided by the DBSG chair to prepare this paper and asked that the paper includes several scenarios to illustrate different aspects of the concerns that are relevant in formulating the final outcome of the DBSG deliberations. The scenarios are evaluated based on information gathered by the ICES secretariat, It is certain that other maps can be developed. For that reason this paper not only contains the map in the chapter on ‘Scenarios’ of this paper, but it also contains the set of criteria – called the guiding principles of location - used to identify the locations. Furthermore, the document contains some considerations with regard to enforcement and control, research, control and surveillance, and monitoring. In its paper the North Sea RAC indicated its willingness to be part of a co-management system for the Dogger Bank. For that reason this paper also contains a brief discussion of a possible co-management regime.
2
The Dogger Bank The first figure below shows water depth contours and the boundaries of the three Natura 2000 sites, in the UK, Dutch and German waters, as these have been submitted to EC
Figure 1. Water depth contours and the boundaries of the three Natura 2000 sites, in the UK, Dutch and German waters, as these have been submitted to EC It is the intention of the Dutch government to modify its notification of the northern boundary so that this better matches the UK northern boundary. For the analysis presented for each scenario we are using this modified northern boundary. The figure below indicates the different habitat types on the Dogger based on the map of the endobenthic communities at the Dogger Bank from Wieking & Kröncke (2003), see also report by van Moorsel (2011) to WWF.
3
Figure 2. Habitats at the Dogger Bank, based on the map of the endobenthic communities at the Dogger Bank from Wieking & Kröncke (2003), see also report by van Moorsel (2011) to WWF. The red line indicates the SAC by EEZ Table 1. Size of habitats within SAC, see Figure 2 for numbering of areas. Sq km SAC
Table 2. Short description of habitats types on the Dogger Bank. Endobenthic Communities on the Dogger Bank
Short Description
Bank Communities
Southwest patch Southern Community Western Community Northeastern Community
Total SAC (including Dutch revision)
The fisheries 2007-2009 in the SAC involves a large number of gears but only three groups are of major importance as can be seen from the graph below
0.00%
25.00%
50.00%
75.00%
100.00%
Beam
traw
l …
Beam
traw
l …
Beam
traw
l Shrimp
Bottom
trawl …
Bottom
trawl …
Bottom
trawl …
Gillne
t
Herring
Midwater traw
l …
Miscellane
ous
Sand
eel
Seine
Sprat
Dogger Bank SAC (Total)
Total KWHRS
Total Landings
Total Value(€)
Figure 3. Fisheries effort, total landings and gross value of landings by gear group in the total SAC. The gear groups of major importance include (1) Beam trawls directed at demersal fish (flatfish), (2) Otter board bottom trawls for demersal fish and (3) otter board bottom trawls for sand eel. The distribution of the effort for these three gear groups are shown below
Opmerking [a.h.1]: What shall we do with this table. How much time do you need to fill it? I suggest that if it takes too much time, we skip it here en produce it in a next version of the table. Everyone is aware of the van Moorsel report which contains an extensive description of these communities.
5
6
Figure 4. Effort distribution for the three major gear groups in Division IVb (Central North Sea) in 2007-2009. The gross value of the landings are distributed by country and by gear as follows
Conservation objective for and current conservation status of the sandbank habitat (H1110) at Dogger Bank The background to the common approach of the 3 Dogger Bank states on the conservation objective for H1110 is contained in the paper “Fisheries measures in Off Shore Natura 2000 sites: Dogger Bank. A Joint Approach. Background paper” which was prepared by the ICES Secretariat for the 16/17 May 2011 DBSG meeting. The common approach (for all 3 member states) entails the following elements: • The conservation status is currently assessed as unfavourable, because of the
quality of the habitat being unfavourable. • This assessment includes that there is significant disturbance of the habitats as a
result of (bottom contacting) fishing and that fishing has distorted the species composition – towards younger and shortlived species.
• Therefore the member states want to decrease the human pressure as a result of bottom contacting fishing gear from the habitat, with an aim to: improve the quality of the habitat (NL); restore the habitat to favourable condition (UK); recover the habitat (GER).
• In doing so they want to establish a more natural situation in which physical structure (the shape, form and composition of the habitat and its substrata), diversity (the number of different biological communities or number of species within a given community) community structure (e.g. age classes, sex ratios, distribution of species, abundance, biomass, reproductive capacity, recruitment, range and mobility) and typical species improve/are restored/are recovered.
• As such the abiotic preconditions and physical structures are improved, human induced disturbance to the benthic community is minimized, and natural processes cause an improvement of the habitat quality. This leads to a community that is shaped by characteristic long living species in natural proportions of size and age. Requirements of good structure and function are applicable to both benthic communities and fish. Individuals of all typical occurring (fish, benthos) species should be present in natural proportions of sizes and ages. Typical species includes: Lanice conchilega, Acrocnida brachiata, Artica islandica, Buccinum undatum, Mactra corralina, Ammodytes marinus (sand eel), Trachinus vipera, Raja clavata (Thornback ray), Pleuronectes platessa (plaice).
UK, DE and NL all want to maintain the surface area or the extend of the habitat and the three member states all want to improve on the abiotic preconditions, the physical structure and minimize the disturbance to the benthic community and improve the habitat by natural processes so that the community is shaped by characteristic long
10
living species in natural proportions of size and age. It is agreed that the requirements of a good structure and function can be applied to both benthic communities and fish. As restoration objectives are distinguished:
1) For abiotic and biotic factors in the area to achieve a state which enables benthic communities to reach and maintain a good state of preservation.
2) Benthic communities should be shaped by characteristic, in particular long-lived, species. Of these species individuals should be present of all typical occurring species and in natural proportions of sizes and ages.
3) Characteristic fish species should be present in characteristic population structures and of all typical species in natural proportion of sizes and ages.
Impact on habitats from fishing Impact from fishing are of two natures: direct kills as the trawl passes and disturbance of the sediments preventing the animals to inhabit the bottom. In a fairly shallow area such as the Dogger Bank and with the sandy bottom that regenerate rather fast it is the direct kills that are the main concern. The slopes of the Dogger Bank are more sensitive as regeneration of the sediment type takes more time than on the top of the Bank. The impact (whether direct kills or disturbance of the sediments) is assumed to the proportional to the effort measured in KW*Hrs per sq. Km2 . A vessel with a large motor disturbs the habitat more per hour than will a vessel using less power. The main energy consumption in trawling is during fishing and a key component in this energy consumption stems from the bottom contact. Therefore, energy saving gears are in general also the more user friendly with respect to habitat impact and much work has over the years been invested in making efficient gears that have low energy consumption and at the same time have less habitat destruction. There are certain gears that are assumed not to have significant impact on the conservation status of the H1110 habitat, i.e.
1. Pelagic trawls (i.e. trawls with no bottom contact this being the doors or the footrope)
2. Gillnets and trammel nets 3. Seines (Flyshooting, Danish and Scottish seines)
These gears could impact the species that are of concern, e..g. by-catch of thornback rays but the present fishing intensity with these gears is low and therefore restrictions on these gears are not considered among the fisheries measures at this time. However, should the fishing pattern change dramatically this will call for a re-evaluation of the impact. This aspect is to be part of the six year evaluation. Gill nets and trammel nets are low energy gears with little impact on the habitat and for that reason not included with the bottom contact gears in the fishery management regime.
11
Displacement of effort As the impact from fishing is a result of the fishing intensity – although this impact is not increasing linearly with the intensity– displacement of the effort within the SAC will lead to further deterioration of the conservation status in those parts that that are left open for access. For this reason the proposal includes considerations of an effort cap on the overall effort of the Dogger Bank preferably such that the fishing intensity KW*Hrs pr sq. Km2 is maintained or even reduced. This implies an overall reduction of effort in the SAC. Displacement could lead to transfer of effort to areas that are already heavily fished and that are more sensitive to fishing than are the H1110 habitat. This is not further discussed in this paper, since it deals only with attaining the conservation objectives in the SAC and since we do not have any firm idea of in what direction fishing effort may be displaced.
Zones DBSG discussed the possible benefits from a zoning approach and concluded that the scenarios should be built based on distinguishing between two zones within the SAC defined as followed:
1. Fishery Management Zone In this zone fishing is limited to gears that will not endanger attaining the conservation objectives of the Dogger Bank SAC and therefore have an insignificant impact. These include
a. Pelagic fisheries, b. Gillnets/trammel nets c. Seines (Flyshooting, Danish and Scottish seines)
Other gears can be allowed based on a case-by-case evaluation of the impact fishing with these gears can be expected to have on the conservation objective for the habitat H1110 in the SAC. The evaluation will be done with respect to habitat directive and based on data provided by the industry that wish to use the technology. In the evaluation the expected fishing intensity on the habitats shall be considered.
2. Free Zone. All legal gears within the CFP are allowed fishing in this zone. The effort in this zone may be capped using effort measured as ‘KwHours’ or some other form of limited access [Effort cap for discussion].
Size and Location of zones The guidelines that are presented below has evolved from the 16/17 May DBSG meeting and the NSRAC process.
12
In order to locate the restricted zone (fishery management zone) we have used the following guideline principles, in the following order: 1. Meet Conservation Objectives for Dogger Bank (improve quality H1110):
i. Geographical spread to cover (4 out of 5) benthic communities. ii. Coverage of both top and slope habitats iii. Coverage of slope habitats should be higher than top habitats (slopes have
higher vulnerability to bottom contacting gear) 2. Distribution over 3 member states
i. The areas should be assigned on the basis of a perspective on the total Doggerbank area, not on the national SAC size
3. Practical considerations, including enforcement i. Design zoning to avoid patching (e.g. 3 or 4 core areas) ii. Minimum size should be 10 km by 10 km (linked to operational practice in
fisheries, a two hour haul) iii. Connect, to the extent possible, the Fishery management zones in different
EEZs 4. Design of research areas (areas should be allocated in conformity with the
designation of the areas):
a. Design in such a way that takes into account fisheries intensity (zones should be in areas with high, medium, low bottom contact fishing intensity)
b. Design in such a way that allows for control plots with a comparable initial status to closed areas
Ex post evaluation criteria for zoning:
1. Socio economic consequences for different fleet segments a. Equitable approach
2. Distribution of the fishery management zone over three member states 3. Wind farm plan
Scenarios All scenarios are subject to the following
1. The overall fishery management zone shall be around 40 % (in area) of the total SAC. This is based on the need to have a significant zone that can be credibly expected to deliver an improvement of the H1110 habitat conservation status with six year. DBSG has indicated that it is looking for scenarios in the 30-50 % bracket;
2. The number of blocks are kept low (3-5) and each block is at least 100 km2; 3. Within the concern for the habitat attention is paid to the total (gross) value of
landings that were generated within the zone 2007-2009;
13
4. The measures are introduced in an adaptive manner and after six years there shall be a comprehensive evaluation of the outcome and the measures revisited. The experiment that is mentioned under point 6 will assist the evaluation and may lead to either extension of reversal of the measures.
5. To assist the evaluation there shall be a designed experiment that can inform the evaluation;
6. Displacement of effort outside the SAC and an effort cap on total effort shall be considered.
Research Design: All three scenarios include areas in all habitats and in all EEZs it is therefore possible within these proposals to design an appropriate experiment. Wind mill park: The main area that is under investigation is Tranche A
Scenario 1 This scenario is intended to demonstrate an equal concern for all habitats and therefore is built upon the idea that the conservation should have the same share of each habitat within the fishery management zone.
14
Figure 5. Scenario 1. The rosa colour indicates the fishery management zone. The details of the area distribution are shown in Table 4. Table 4.Area sizes (Sq. Km) for scenario 1. DE NL UK Sum Total % of total Northeastern 779 779 1,611 48.4%
Bank 496 868 2,815 4,179 10,464 39.9%
Southern 496 1,186 1,682 3,771 44.6%
Southerwestern patch 708 708 2,125 33.3%
Western 336 336 761 44.2%
Grand Total 992 2,054 4,639 7,684 18,733
Total SAC 58.3% 43.0% 37.9% 41.0%
The fishing that took place in each zone in percentage of the average fishing 2007-2009 is shown in Table 6.
15
Table 6. Percentage (%) of effort, total landings and total value of landings that originated 2007-2009 from the fishery management zone by gear and by flag state DNK GBR GER NLD Total Total Total
Grand Total 0.68 35.14 18.25 2.13 2.75 15.13 0.04 0.67 0.76 18.05 0.36 2.23 20.90 38.92 36.4
16
Explanation of the zoning proposal The proposal as depicted in the figure above can be explained in terms of how it meets the principles for spatial allocation.
i. Meeting conservation objectives All habitats are having the same degree of protection.
ii. Distribution over the member states
iii. Practicable considerations, including enforcement
The proposal presents the situation in a few blocks
iv. Impact on fleet segments
Scenario 2 This scenario is intended to demonstrate special concern for the slope habitats. Furthermore this scenario has a more than 50 ‘closure’ in the German sector.
17
Figure 6. Scenario 2 Emphasis on the slope habitat communities (northeastern, western and southern) Table 7. Scenario 2. Size and % of habitat in total SAC. DE NL UK Sum Total % of total
Northeastern 283 35 921 1,239 1,611 76.93%
Bank 425 513 1,647 2,585 10,464 24.70%
Southern 496 1,771 2,266 3,771 60.10%
Southerwestern patch 1,062 1,062 2,125 49.99%
Western 513 513 761 67.47%
Grand Total 1,204 2,319 4,143 7,667 18,733 40.93%
Total SAC 70.83% 48.52% 33.82% 40.93%
18
Table 8. Scenario 2. Effort (KW*HRS), Landings and gross value by flag state and gear group in % of total activity in SAC DNK GBR GER NLD Total
Grand Total 0.7 34.3 16.8 2.1 2.6 14.4 0.0 0.7 0.7 19.2 0.4 2.6 21.9 38.0 34.5
19
Explanation of the zoning proposal The proposal as depicted in the figure above can be explained in terms of how it meets the principles for spatial allocation.
i. Meeting conservation objectives The proposal places special attention on the slope communities but still has a significant part of the Bank community within the fishery management zone
ii. Distribution over the member states
All three EEZ are represented in the fishery management zone. The German wish for a high proportion of its EEZ within the fishery management zone is accommodated;
iii. Practicable considerations, including enforcement
The fishery management zone is grouped in a few probably manageable blocks
iv. Research Design All habitats are represented both in the ‘free’ as well in the fishery management zone and a proper experiment can be designed within these zones;
v. Wind mill park
There are significant fishery management areas within the tranche A.
vi. Impact on fleet segments To be analysed further
Scenario 3 This scenario is intended to demonstrate special concern for effects on the fishing industry without regards for habitats and therefore is built to minimise the total value that is generated within 40 of the total SAC and at the same time maintaining that only three distinct areas are defined. The gross value of the landings 2007-2009 is distributed as shown at the map below. There are now clear areas on the Dogger Bank that show high respective low value of the landings. The map also shows that Dogger Bank in general and compared to Division IVb is a high value area.
20
Figure 7. Distribution of total gross value of landings for Division IVb (Central North Sea) 2007-2009. For this scenario we have identified the 40 csquares within the SAC that 2007-2009 have generated the lowest gross value of the landings irrespective of species and gear. Hence the results may be biased because there are differences in the cost required to generate 1 € worth of landings. The map is shown below
21
Figure 8. Scenario 3 Minimal impact on gross value from fishing Table 9. Size of fishery management zone by habitat and EEZ. % of habitat in EEZ DE NL UK Sum Total SAC % of total
Northeastern 159 1,080 1,239 1,611 76.93%
Bank 195 248 2,851 3,293 10,464 31.47%
Southern 18 1,080 230 1,328 3,771 35.21%
Southerwestern patch 1,434 1,434 2,125 67.49%
Western 372 372 761 48.86%
Grand Total 372 1,328 5,967 7,667 18,733 40.93%
Total SAC 21.88% 27.78% 48.70% 40.93%
22
Table 10. Scenario 3. Activities by gear and by EEZ 2007-2009 relative to total activity in SAC
Explanation of the zoning proposal The proposal as depicted in the figure above can be explained in terms of how it meets the principles for spatial allocation.
i. Meeting conservation objectives Such a proposal is not developed to meet conservation objectives but the low value csquares include parts of all habitats.
ii. Distribution over the member states
There are fishery management areas in each EEZ but in particular the German wish for a 50 fishery management zone within its EEZ is very poorly met.
iii. Practicable considerations, including enforcement
The proposal is rather patchy and should be modified to lump some of the areas together at the price of higher impact on the affected fishery.
iv. Research Design
As all habitats are represented it may be possible within these zones to define an appropriate experiment
v. Wind mill park
A rather large proportion of the windmill tranche A is within the fishery management zone.
vi. Impact on fleet segments
All three major fleet segments are affected. However, this is not analysed further.
Research, Monitoring and Surveillance The proposal is based on two principles (1) there should be an improvement of the conservation status of the Natura 2000 sites on the Dogger Bank and there should be an experiment that will inform on the impact on the habitats from fishing. Improving the conservation status is achieved through a reduction of the overall fishing pressure in the SAC through a system with 'no-take zones' and effort displacement out of the N2000 area. This is discussed above. The conservation objectives are defined for the benthic communities on the Dogger Bank. The objective of the experiment is to investigate if (a) the biomass of the benthic communities change (increase), (b) for the slow growing species to increase the average size/age and (c) a shift in the biodiversity from short lived/fast growing species to more long lived species. The experiment has 'no impact' as the null hypothesis. This means that the design allow for a minimum change in the main parameters. This will put a burden on the sampling frequency and sampling intensity. The experiment is designed as a 'no-take' zone working as a control area and a number of areas where there is controlled fishing pressure. These areas are part of the 'free' zone and of the 'fishery management zones'
24
but in addition these areas shall be exposed to a well defined fishing pressure, it will not do to have these areas unfished in some seasons and heavily fished in others.
Fishing will need to be under control and this involves:
• All fishing in the N2000 zones should be based on an access permission regime • VMS should be mandatory as part of the licence conditions. There are also
requirements for the access to take scientists on-board and sampling of the catches and landings
• The monitoring programme mentioned above is part of the package • Mandatory CCTV surveillance might be considered as a condition for access
Control and Enforcement In its guidance on Natura 2000 in the marine environment (FISHERIES MEASURES FOR MARINE NATURA 2000 SITES; A consistent approach to requests for fisheries management measures under the Common Fisheries Policy) the EC reminds states that in submitting their proposals they should pay proper attention to aspects of control and enforcement. At present there is a European system of coordinated control and enforcement. This fisheries inspection is a well oiled machine withs routines and procedures. It is the only seabased and airbased system of fisheries inspection in the North Sea area. It is proposed here that the existing fisheries inspection be used also for the enforcement of the Dogger Bank protective regime. For that purpose it is necessary to define an action, which will be implemented at a later stage, to the effect of charting the consequences of
Experimental design:
(1) The experiment shall inform on the changes in selected area within each of the ‘free’ zone, the ‘fishery management’ zone and the no‐take’ zone.
(2) The experiment will last for six years followed by an evaluation (3) (3) The main parameters on which the evaluation is to be done is (a) overall biomass as
estimated with a ‘xxx' grab and sorted with sieves of 'xxx' mm, (b) the size distribution of a set of key species, and (b) species composition of a predefined set of species.
(4) Definition of three areas: (a) a control area (no‐take' zone, (b) 'Fishery management' fishing area and (c) heavily fished zone.
(5) Specification of the fishing effort (by gear) that each area of types (b) and (c) should be exposed to
(6) Design of an international joint monitoring programme. This design should be done carefully to avoid the problems that are encountered with merging the data from the different Dogger Bank states mapping made prior to the designation of the SAC's
(7) A model basis that will allow a systematic evaluation of the changes
(8) The detailed design of this experiment is left for ICES to advice and ICES to be invited to coordinate the data collection and data analysis.
25
enforcement of Natura 2000 legislation at the Dogger Bank site in terms of competences and capacity.
Tasks of co-management In its para. 6 the North Sea RAC document contains “Recommendations for elements of a zoning proposal”. In the view of the RAC the Dogger Bank should have a co-management structure. In their document the RAC defines co-management as “a process of management in which government shares power with resource users, with each given specific rights and responsibilities relating to information and decision-making.” The NSRAC is confident that as stakeholders they can add to the overall quality of the management process on the Dogger Bank. The wish of the NS RAC to be part of a co-management system is an expression which goes beyond the remit of the members of the DBSG. However, while looking positively at this proposal to use the willingness of the stakeholders to make an active contribution to the management of the Dogger Bank, discussions on this topic cannot be concluded on such a short time scale as is lying before the DBSG. It is therefore suggested to take up the challenge and to form an informal group, consisting of state representatives and stakeholders with the assignment to draw up a paper, in collaboration with the EC, which can demonstrate how co-management can contribute to a better management of the Dogger Bank. Should such a system come to live then issues like the development of a system to cap the effort on the Dogger Bank and e.g. the definition of fishery management could be tasks that could be attributed to such a system.
Conclusion In this paper an attempt is made to develop a zoning regime for the Dogger Bank taking into account the criteria that have been specified by the Dogger Bank Steering Group and the North Sea RAC. In doing so, the existing policy lines have been respected. An equitable burden sharing between states and their fleets has been an important criterion and the figures added in the different tables show that to a certain extent an equal share of the N2000 sites has been projected on the Dogger Bank.
